After decades spent pursuing net-zero dreams at great cost to their economies and social fabric, most of the world’s industrialized nations are waking back up. War with Iran and the threat of tanker blockades have everyone worried about oil and natural gas supplies and clamouring for energy security. Or nearly everyone. Not Mark Carney, though. Canada’s prime minister keeps pushing industrial carbon taxes higher and insists on wasting taxpayers’ money on windmills that make no difference. Gwyn Morgan recalls his own observation of the global warming movement’s original rise, its morphing into the radical “net zero” cult – and its spectacular global disintegration. It is high time, Morgan writes, that Canadians demand Carney also drop his delusions.

Climate-obsessed politicians – Justin Trudeau in the vanguard – nearly destroyed the Canadian economy chasing emissions targets that are both unrealistic and pointless. Ottawa and the four biggest provinces have squandered $158 billion to create just 68,000 “clean” jobs. Meanwhile, fossil fuels are supplying a bigger share of Canada’s energy needs than ever. And now, leading U.S. officials and even eco-zealots like Bill Gates are re-evaluating their net-zero ideology. But that hasn’t gotten through to Prime Minister Mark Carney who, warns Gwyn Morgan, intends to inflict further punishment on an ailing country in pursuit of a delusional cause.

Sweden may have inflicted Greta Thunberg and her environmental hectoring on the world, but Canada is now making its own contribution to children’s activism. Ontario climate zealots have launched a court battle – with seven children and youth named as applicants – alleging the province’s modest rollback of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets violates their Charter rights. Exploiting children is bad enough, but in this devastating critique, retired litigation lawyer Andrew Roman explains how the activists use legal and logical fallacies to make their case. And he exposes the fundamental flaw in the entire matter – that Courts should not even be ruling on the inherently political matter of climate policy.

Many Canadians think of the Supreme Court as a wise and august body that can be trusted to give the final word on the country’s most important issues. But what happens when most of its justices get it wrong? Former government litigator Jack Wright delves into the court’s landmark ruling upholding the federal carbon tax and uncovers mistakes, shoddy reasoning and unfounded conclusions. In this exclusive legal analysis, Wright finds that the key climate-related contentions at the heart of the court’s decision were made with no evidence presented, no oral arguments and no cross-examination – and are flat wrong. Now being held up as binding judicial precedent by climate activists looking for ever-more restrictive regulations, the decision is proving to be not just flawed but dangerous.

In its drive to stop climate change, the Justin Trudeau government in 2022 mandated that Canada get to a “net-zero” power grid by 2035, a time-frame subsequently extended to 2050. But is that feasible? In this exclusive analysis, nuclear physicist Jim Mason crunches the numbers to determine what would be required to replace electricity from fossil fuels with zero-emitting power. It turns out it would take so long and cost so much – hundreds of billions of dollars – that the policy is not just unrealistic, it’s ludicrous. And, Mason notes, that is before considering the soaring power demands from mandatory electric vehicles and home heat pumps, which come with their own elusive targets. The numbers don’t lie: a net-zero electricity system is a pointless delusion.

Climate change has ingrained itself so deeply in the public consciousness that it’s likely an article of faith that the foundational science was all conducted, tested and confirmed decades ago. Surely to goodness, exactly how carbon dioxide (CO₂) behaves in the atmosphere is “settled science”, right? That more CO₂ emitted equals more heat and higher temperature is a cornerstone of the ruling scientific paradigm. And yet, finds Jim Mason, the detailed dynamics of how, when and to what degree CO₂ transforms radiation into atmospheric heat are anything but settled. So much remains unknown that recent academic research inquiring whether CO₂ at its current atmospheric concentrations can even absorb more heat amounts to breaking new ground in climate science. If it can’t, notes Mason, then further changes in CO₂ levels not only won’t drive “global boiling”, they won’t have any impact on climate at all.

When does a once-lofty ideal that some time ago degenerated into blind dogma collapse further into suicide cult? Right about now, when it comes to “save the planet” by forcing Canada to “net zero.” Gwyn Morgan charts the Trudeau government’s further ratcheting up of taxes and regulatory burdens on Canada’s hard-pressed consumers, businesses and the energy sector, all in the name of fighting climate change to which Canada’s contribution is barely a rounding error – while the big emitters like China get a free pass from the Trudeau government itself.

Plenty of new public policies, at least to hear their opponents tell it, are destined to end in calamity or failure. But how many can be proven so based on their proponents’ own evidence? Surely such a thing requires a special, perverse kind of political genius. Peter Shawn Taylor takes a close look at the barrage of official reports and analyses released ahead of the Liberals’ ban on single-use plastic items. It turns out the disappearance of disposable plastic bags, straws and cutlery will not be as easy on the economy – or as good for the environment – as the Trudeau government would have you believe.

We inhabit an age when science – and even more so, scientists and other experts – are revered and exercise pervasive influence over government policy and public life. Much of the public, it seems, has come to assume that science is the source of all knowledge and truth. Accordingly, new policies, laws or regulations are routinely claimed to be “driven by the science.” But is all of this justified? Is it really science-based? Does science itself have no limits? Drawing on the wisdom of his lifelong scientific career, Jim Mason reviews essential characteristics of science and warns how hubris and ambition can steer scientists and governments very far from the path of science. For voters to properly assess the merits of claims and “solutions” drawing their authority from science, Mason believes it is essential that they understand some fundamental things about science itself.

The isolation imposed by the lengthy pandemic makes it both tempting and understandable for us to look inward, focused mainly on our own survival concerns and those of our immediate circle. Politics can wait. But the so-called progressive side won’t rest. It has remained busy, taking only weeks to begin redefining issue after issue through the lens of the coronavirus. More government, more regulation and less capitalism are its answers. They always are. But is this our inevitable future? Anthony Furey mounts a clear and powerful alternative case for Canada based on the national interest and equality for all.